2:22-cv-01520
Distribution Intelligence Systems LLC v. Diversatek Healthcare Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Distribution Intelligence Systems, LLC (Wyoming)
- Defendant: Diversatek Healthcare, Inc. (Wisconsin)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: SML Avvocati P.C.
- Case Identification: 2:22-cv-01520, E.D. Wis., 12/19/2022
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper based on Defendant being a Wisconsin corporation with its principal place of business in the state, where it regularly conducts business and where the alleged infringing acts occurred.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s medical suture anchor product infringes a patent related to intramedullary nails used for stabilizing bone fractures.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns orthopedic implants, specifically intramedullary nails, which are inserted into the marrow cavity of long bones to hold fractured pieces together during healing.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, inter partes review proceedings, or licensing history related to the patent-in-suit.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2010-03-09 | U.S. Patent No. 8,617,160 Priority Date |
| 2013-12-31 | U.S. Patent No. 8,617,160 Issue Date |
| 2022-12-19 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,617,160 - "Dynamic Intramedullary Hardware"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,617,160, issued December 31, 2013.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the difficulty, time, and repeated x-ray exposure associated with securing the distal end of a conventional intramedullary nail inside a bone (’160 Patent, col. 1:49-59). Aligning external drills with screw holes at the far end of the nail is described as an imprecise and challenging procedure (’160 Patent, col. 2:10-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention proposes an intramedullary nail with a self-contained, internal anchoring mechanism that eliminates the need for external drilling and screws (’160 Patent, col. 2:21-27). As detailed in the specification, a "driver" element is moved within the hollow nail, which in turn pushes one or more "anchoring elements" outward from the nail's body to engage the surrounding cortical bone, thereby securing the nail in place (’160 Patent, col. 3:10-17; Fig. 3).
- Technical Importance: This approach is presented as a solution to reduce surgical time, patient and personnel exposure to radiation, and scarring (’160 Patent, col. 2:27-34).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts infringement of at least independent Claim 1 (’160 Patent, col. 6:24-37; Compl. ¶10).
- The essential elements of Claim 1 include:
- An elongated tubular body for implantation into osseous material.
- A mobile elongated rod contained within the tubular body.
- An anchoring element attached to the elongated tubular body.
- A driver attached to the mobile elongated rod.
- Wherein the driver can move substantially along the length of the tubular body to engage the anchoring element, causing it to protrude laterally and engage the surrounding osseous material.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The Defendant's "MectaLock PEEK Suture Anchor product" is the accused instrumentality (Compl. ¶10).
Functionality and Market Context
The complaint alleges that the MectaLock product "employs the invention covered by Claim 1" (Compl. ¶10). However, the complaint does not provide specific technical details regarding the structure or operational mechanics of the MectaLock product itself. It is identified as a "suture anchor," a category of device typically used to attach soft tissue to bone, rather than an intramedullary nail for fracture fixation. No information is provided regarding the product's market position.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint references an "infringement analysis at Exhibit B," but this exhibit was not filed with the complaint (Compl. ¶10). The analysis below is therefore based on the narrative allegations in the complaint body. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
’160 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A device for the implantation into osseous material to facilitate healing, comprising: an elongated tubular body | The complaint alleges the MectaLock product is a device for implantation that employs the claimed invention. | ¶9, ¶10 | col. 4:18-21 |
| wherein the elongated tubular body contains a) a mobile elongated rod; | The complaint alleges the accused product contains the elements recited in Claim 1, including a mobile elongated rod. | ¶9 | col. 4:51-52 |
| b) an anchoring element attached to the elongated tubular body; | The complaint alleges the accused product contains the elements recited in Claim 1, including an anchoring element. | ¶9 | col. 4:28-29 |
| and c) a driver attached to the elongated rod | The complaint alleges the accused product contains the elements recited in Claim 1, including a driver. | ¶9 | col. 4:51-53 |
| wherein the driver can move substantially along the length of the elongated tubular body and engages the anchoring element thereby causing the anchoring element to protrude laterally through the elongated tubular body and engage the surrounding osseous material. | The complaint alleges the driver in the accused product moves to engage and cause the anchoring element to protrude and engage osseous material. | ¶9 | col. 5:11-14 |
Identified Points of Contention
- Technical Questions: A primary question is whether the "MectaLock PEEK Suture Anchor" product, which is functionally distinct from an intramedullary nail, operates in the manner claimed. The complaint does not provide evidence showing that the accused product contains a "mobile elongated rod," a "driver," and an "anchoring element" that function as described in the patent.
- Scope Questions: The dispute may turn on whether the accused "suture anchor" can be considered "a device for the implantation into osseous material to facilitate healing" in the context of the patent, which is directed entirely to intramedullary nails for bone fracture fixation.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for a full analysis of claim construction disputes. However, based on the technology, certain terms may become central.
The Term: 'driver'
- Context and Importance: The "driver" is the component that actuates the anchoring mechanism. Its structure and method of engagement with the "anchoring element" are core to the invention. Practitioners may focus on this term because the specific mechanism in the accused product must correspond to the patent's definition of a "driver."
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims do not narrowly define the driver's shape, stating only that it is "attached to the elongated rod" and "engages the anchoring element" (e.g., ’160 Patent, col. 6:29-35).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes specific embodiments where the driver has a "body 114 and a conical top 116" (’160 Patent, col. 4:64-65; Fig. 1F) and is positioned to "move between or amongst the anchors 108" to push them outward (’160 Patent, col. 5:11-14). A defendant might argue that "driver" is limited to such a push-style actuator.
The Term: 'anchoring element attached to the elongated tubular body'
- Context and Importance: The method of "attachment" defines how the anchoring element is connected to the nail's main body. The viability of the infringement claim may depend on whether the accused product's configuration falls within the scope of this term.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language "attached to" is broad and does not specify a particular method of attachment (’160 Patent, col. 6:29).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification discloses several specific attachment methods, including being cut directly from the nail wall to form a "living hinge" (’160 Patent, col. 5:30), or attached via a separate pin or wire ring (’160 Patent, col. 5:32-34). A party could argue the term should be construed in light of these disclosed embodiments.
VI. Other Allegations
Indirect Infringement
The complaint alleges both induced infringement and contributory infringement (Compl. ¶¶12-13). It asserts Defendant had "full knowledge" of the patent and provided the accused products to customers and distributors with the "specific intent to cause, encourage, or aid infringement" (Compl. ¶12). For contributory infringement, it makes the conclusory allegation that the products "are not staple articles or commodities of commerce suitable for a substantial noninfringing use" (Compl. ¶13). No specific facts, such as references to user manuals or marketing materials, are provided to support these claims.
Willful Infringement
Willfulness is alleged based on the claim that Defendant's infringement continued "at least since Defendant first learned about the ’160 patent" (Compl. ¶14). The complaint does not specify when or how this knowledge was obtained.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
A Fundamental Factual Question: The central issue is evidentiary. Does the accused "MectaLock PEEK Suture Anchor" actually contain the components and operate according to the specific mechanical sequence recited in Claim 1 of the ’160 Patent? The complaint's lack of technical detail on the accused product's functionality makes this the primary open question to be resolved through discovery.
A Question of Technological Equivalence: A key legal and technical question will be whether a "suture anchor," a device for attaching tissue to bone, can infringe a patent exclusively describing an "intramedullary nail," a device for internal fixation of bone fractures. The analysis will likely focus on whether the structures and functions are analogous or if there is a fundamental mismatch in the technological context and purpose.
A Question of Definitional Scope: Should the case proceed, claim construction will be critical. The court’s interpretation of terms like "driver" and "anchoring element attached to the elongated tubular body" will determine the scope of the patent's protection and whether the specific design of the accused product falls within that scope.